KARACHI: Former Supreme Court judge Maqbool Baqar has said that judges are not included in the Supreme Court on the basis of merit as it involves nepotism, favoritism and sacrifice of merit.
His comments came while speaking at the Karachi Literature Festival’s session titled “Rising Expectations: Pakistan’s Judiciary in Focus” moderated by senior advocate Faisal Siddiqui on Sunday.
The former judge said that corruption in the judiciary is still there, but to what extent anyone had an idea.
“The 18th Amendment calls for a participatory process involving Constitutional Court judges with the application of collective wisdom,” Baqar said.
He added that “the Constitution does not give absolute power to the Chief Justice to do whatever he wants when it comes to promotion, appointment or accountability of judges”.
During the seminar, Baqar said that the Constitution does not give the Chief Justice absolute power to add, elevate or hold a judge accountable.
He said that an independent judiciary plays an important role in the development, welfare and well-being of the society, adding that if the judiciary works according to the constitution, it can be strong, impartial and independent.
He said that a judge who is strong and determined and has vision, conviction and knowledge will never come under anyone’s influence. “If you have a skeleton in the closet, greedy for power, money and fame and bigoted, then you tend to lean towards those who are in power,” he added.
He said that the Chief Justice initiates the process of nomination of judges himself although most of the members of the judiciary and the Judicial Commission of Pakistan believe that this is not an exclusive power and they should also be consulted when the names are proposed. .
Baqar said that judges who were involved in any immoral activity, tended to please people with power and authority and never confronted or resented them and if any complaint was registered against them, it would be carpeted. Thrown down. He said he could name people who “were in disrepute but still stood on top of things and had a say in administrative decisions, the composition of benches and the assignment of cases” but that would be a personal attack.
He said that the exclusive discretion of the Chief Justice regarding the constitution of benches should not be exercised in the way it is being done and at least senior judges should participate in them. Sensitive cases should also be heard, including those of a political nature. .
‘Institution of victimisation’
Lawyer Hamid Khan said that the current mechanism of accountability of judges dates back to the 1962 Constitution which created the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) with full representation of judges to decide whether to impeach a judge. How to proceed
He added that earlier the President could only send a reference to the Council against a judge on the recommendation of the Prime Minister but there was no question of sending a reference against a corrupt judge as he was always busy pleasing and appeasing the government. are
In 2003, he said, the 17th Amendment gave the SJC the power to act against a judge based on a complaint, but then judges started protecting each other. “Complaints are received against judges with tainted reputations but they are never publicized or acted upon, and vice versa judges who are not in good terms with the establishment or who are on the periphery of affairs are punished. is given
The Supreme Judicial Council has become completely ineffective. Apparently, in the last decade and a half, it has become an institution of victimization rather than accountability,” he said.
Khan said Parliament has been unable to play its role and has been rendered weak and irrelevant over a period of time, leaving the entire burden on the judiciary.
Meanwhile, Palusha Shahab said that if the judiciary is dominated by men, it cannot fulfill its duty to provide justice to all because then there are ideas and perspectives that would be absent from its jurisprudence.
